User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
FDA moves to stop the spread of illicit ‘tranq’ in the U.S.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.
It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.
The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”
FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”
In November, the agency warned health care providers that because xylazine is not an opioid, the overdose reversal agent naloxone would not be effective. Xylazine acts as a central alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonist in the brainstem, causing a rapid decrease in the release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the central nervous system. Its use can lead to central nervous system and respiratory depression, said the FDA.
Clinicians have scrambled to treat severe necrotic skin ulcerations that develop at injection sites.
Xylazine is relatively cheap and easy to access, said the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice in a November joint report. The drug is “readily available for purchase on other Internet sites in liquid and powder form, often with no association to the veterinary profession nor requirements to prove legitimate need,” said the Justice Department. A buyer can purchase xylazine powder online from Chinese suppliers for $6-$20 per kilogram, according to the report.
In 2021, xylazine-positive overdoses were highest in the South, which experienced a 1,127% increase from 2020, the Justice Department reported. The same year, there were 1,281 overdoses involving the substance in the Northeast and 351 in the Midwest.
There were just 34 overdoses involving xylazine in the West in 2021, but its use appears to be growing. The San Francisco Department of Public Health said it had detected low levels of xylazine in four people who died of overdoses in December and January.
“Identifying xylazine in San Francisco is concerning,” said the department in a statement, adding that it had not yet seen evidence of skin wounds in injection drug users in the city.
In late February, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a warning to first responders and health care professionals that xylazine had been detected in the area’s illicit drug supply.
The department said it will “work closely with other partners to understand the extent of the possible xylazine contamination in the illicit drug supply to increase awareness and education to the public.”
The FDA commissioner said the agency will coordinate with public health officials to more closely track xylazine.
“We will continue to use all tools at our disposal and partner with the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal, state, local agencies, and stakeholders as appropriate to stem these illicit activities and protect public health,” said Dr. Califf.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DEA proposals on telehealth for controlled substances draw fire
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.
Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.
The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.
“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.
Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.
“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”
The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.
The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.
A potential ‘telehealth cliff’
Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”
Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”
Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.
“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.
“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.
The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.
But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”
Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”
The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.
Ketamine confusion
The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.
Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.
Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.
“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.
However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”
Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.
“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.
Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinician violence: Virtual reality to the rescue?
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Once-daily stimulant for ADHD safe, effective at 1 year
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.
Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Antipsychotic cuts Alzheimer’s-related agitation
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
results of a phase 3 study suggest.
“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.
Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
Agitation common, distressing
With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.
Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.
The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.
To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.
Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.
Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).
The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).
Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).
Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).
“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.
Boxed warnings
Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.
Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.
One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.
This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.
Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.
“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.
In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.
In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.
“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.
Caution still warranted
Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”
He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.
Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”
Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”
“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said.
The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This article was updated 3/14/23.
AT AAGP 2023
Buprenorphine proves effective for fentanyl users in the ED
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
based on data from nearly 900 individuals.
California EDs include a facilitation program known as CA Bridge for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Guidelines for CA Bridge call for high-dose buprenorphine to treat patients in drug withdrawal, with doses starting at 8-16 mg, Hannah Snyder, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote.
“Buprenorphine has been repeatedly shown to save lives and prevent overdoses,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “We know that emergency department–initiated buprenorphine is an essential tool for increasing access. In the era of fentanyl, both patients and providers have expressed concerns that buprenorphine may not work as well as it did when patients were more likely to be using heroin or opioid pills.
“This retrospective cohort study provides additional information about emergency department buprenorphine as fentanyl becomes increasingly prevalent.”
In a research letter published in JAMA Network Open, the investigators reviewed data from the electronic health records of 896 patients who presented with opioid use disorder (OUD) at 16 CA Bridge EDs between Jan. 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020. All patients with OUD were included regardless of chief concern, current treatment, treatment desires, or withdrawal. A total of 87 individuals reported fentanyl use; if no fentanyl use was reported, the patient was classified as not using fentanyl. The median age of the patients was 35 years, two thirds were male, approximately 46% were White and non-Hispanic, and 30% had unstable housing.
The primary outcome was follow-up engagement at 7-14 days and 25-37 days.
A total of 492 patients received buprenorphine, including 44 fentanyl users, and 439 initiated high doses of 8-32 mg. At a 30-day follow-up, eight patients had precipitated withdrawal, including two cases in fentanyl users; none of these cases required hospital admission.
The follow-up engagement was similar for both groups, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.60 for administered buprenorphine at the initial ED encounter, 1.09 for 7-day follow-up, and 1.33 for 30-day follow-up.
The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of clinical documentation, which likely resulted in underreporting of fentanyl use and follow-up, the researchers noted. However, the results supported the effectiveness of buprenorphine for ED patients in withdrawal with a history of fentanyl exposure.
“We were pleased to see that precipitated withdrawal was relatively uncommon in this study, and that patients who did and did not use fentanyl followed up at similar rates,” said Dr. Snyder. “This aligns with our clinical experience and prior research showing that emergency department buprenorphine starts continue to be an essential tool.”
The message for clinicians: “If a patient presents to the emergency department in objective opioid withdrawal and desires buprenorphine, they should be offered treatment in that moment,” Dr. Snyder said. “Treatment protocols used by hospitals in this study are available online. Emergency departments can offer compassionate and evidence-based treatment initiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.”
More data needed on dosing strategies
“We need additional research to determine best practices for patients who use fentanyl and want to start buprenorphine, but are not yet in withdrawal,” Dr. Snyder said. “Doses of buprenorphine like those in this study are only appropriate for patients who are in withdrawal with objective signs, so some patients may struggle to wait long enough after their last use to go into sufficient withdrawal.”
Precipitated withdrawal does occur in some cases, said Dr. Snyder. “If it does, the emergency department is a very good place to manage it. We need additional research to determine best practices in management to make patients as comfortable as possible, including additional high-dose buprenorphine as well as additional adjunctive agents.”
Findings support buprenorphine
“The classic approach to buprenorphine initiation, which emerged from psychiatry outpatient office visits, is to start with very small doses of buprenorphine [2-4 mg] and titrate up slowly,” Reuben J. Strayer, MD, said in an interview.
“This dose range turns out to be the ‘sour spot’ most likely to cause the most important complication around buprenorphine initiation–precipitated withdrawal,” said Dr. Strayer, the director of addiction medicine in the emergency medicine department at Maimonides Medical Center, New York.
“One of the current focus areas of OUD treatment research is determining how to initiate buprenorphine without entailing a period of spontaneous withdrawal and without causing precipitated withdrawal,” Strayer explained. “The two primary strategies are low-dose buprenorphine initiation [LDBI, less than 2 mg, sometimes called microdosing] and high-dose [HDBI, ≥ 16 mg] buprenorphine initiation. HDBI is attractive because the primary treatment of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal is more buprenorphine.
“Additionally, using a high dose up front immediately transitions the patient to therapeutic blood levels, which protects the patient from withdrawal, cravings, and overdose from dangerous opioids (heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone).”
However, “the contamination and now replacement of heroin with fentanyl in the street drug supply has challenged buprenorphine initiation, because fentanyl, when used chronically, accumulates in the body and leaks into the bloodstream slowly over time, preventing the opioid washout that is required to eliminate the risk of precipitated withdrawal when buprenorphine is administered,” said Dr. Strayer.
The current study demonstrates that patients who are initiated with a first dose of 8-16 mg buprenorphine are unlikely to experience precipitated withdrawal and are successfully transitioned to buprenorphine maintenance and clinic follow-up, Dr. Snyder said, but he was surprised by the low rate of precipitated withdrawal in the current study, “which is discordant with what is being anecdotally reported across the country.”
However, the take-home message for clinicians is the support for the initiation of buprenorphine in emergency department settings at a starting dose of 8-16 mg, regardless of reported fentanyl use, he said. “Given the huge impact buprenorphine therapy has on OUD-related mortality, clinicians should make every effort to initiate buprenorphine for OUD patients at every opportunity, and precipitated withdrawal is very unlikely in appropriately selected patients.
“Many clinicians remain reluctant to initiate buprenorphine in ED settings for unfamiliarity with the drug, fear of precipitated withdrawal, or concerns around the certainty of outpatient follow-up,” Dr. Snyder said. “Education, encouragement, systems programming, such as including decision support within the electronic health record, and role-modeling from local champions will promote wider adoption of this lifesaving practice.”
Looking ahead, “more research, including prospective research, is needed to refine best practices around buprenorphine administration,” said Dr. Snyder. Questions to address include which patients are most at risk for precipitated withdrawal and whether there are alternatives to standard initiation dosing that are sufficiently unlikely to cause precipitated withdrawal. “Possibly effective alternatives include buprenorphine initiation by administration of long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine, which accumulates slowly, potentially avoiding precipitated withdrawal, as well as a slow intravenous buprenorphine infusion such as 9 mg given over 12 hours.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Snyder disclosed grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the California Department of Health Care Services during the study. Dr. Strayer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Once-daily stimulant for ADHD safe, effective at 1 year
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new research shows.
Results from a phase 3, multicenter, dose-optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.
“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
The study was published online in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.
Safety at 1 year
The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate, coformulated with immediate-release d-MPH.
SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.
Azstarys was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.
For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial.
After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.
After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study because of a TEAE during the treatment phase.
The investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.
There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.
The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.
Efficacy at 1 year
ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.
At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale–5 score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).
The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.
Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).
CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.
These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.
“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”
‘Reassuring data’
Commenting on the findings, Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.
“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.
“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.
Overall, the safety data reported in the study are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.
However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.
“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment, and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”
The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Who can sue docs for wrongful death? Some states are trying to expand that group
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In addition, the types of emotional damage that physicians can be sued for is expanding in pockets across the nation. The latest effort to expand the capacity to sue, a bill in New York state, failed when it was not signed by the governor – but a toned-down bill is in the works.
The impact of New York’s proposed expansion of wrongful death lawsuits would have been widespread. The New York legislation would have expanded the definition of “close family members” to include spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, stepparents, siblings, grandparents, and perhaps more. Additionally, lawsuits could have allowed juries to determine “close family members” of the deceased patient on the basis of specific circumstances of the person’s relationship with the decedent.
Currently, every state allows a wrongful death claim to be filed by immediate family members. If the patient who died was married, a surviving spouse could bring the lawsuit. If the patient had been unmarried, an adult child could bring the lawsuit in some states. A parent typically brings a lawsuit if their minor child has died from alleged wrongful death. In some states, one member of a civil union or domestic partnership may bring a wrongful death lawsuit. And if a single adult has no children or spouse/partner, more distant family members, including aunts, uncles, siblings, or grandparents, may file the suit.
The New York bill would also have expanded compensable damages to include loss of affection and companionship, and it would have expanded emotional damages, which are not currently included in New York. It would also have extended the statute of limitations of a wrongful death claim from 2 years to 3.5 years.
In general, in states that allow emotional distress to be included in wrongful death lawsuits, attorneys must demonstrate that survivors have suffered mental harm, such as depression, loss of sleep, fear, and anger, says Russ Haven, JD, general counsel for the New York Public Interest Research Group. While mental harm is not particularly easy to prove, attorneys must show that survivors have ongoing distress that is the direct result of the loss of the loved one and that the distress is significant enough to severely affect their quality of life.
Mr. Haven gives an example of emotional distress: “We worked with a woman who lost her fiancé in a motor vehicle accident,” he says. “The funeral ended up on the day she had scheduled her wedding dress fitting. A situation like that causes a good deal of lasting emotional distress.”
Expanding family members who can bring the lawsuit
The fact that a fiancé could be included in a wrongful death settlement is another aspect of the New York bill that was central to arguments both for and against the expansion of family members who can make claims. “We think a modern society includes unmarried partners, grandparents, siblings, and others,” says Mr. Haven.
“The language of who is a close family member might seem clear, but to a defense attorney, it isn’t,” says Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “This could end up being a situation where someone has 40 grandchildren, and all could be considered close family members.”
Many states currently allow damages for claims of grief and mental anguish resulting from a wrongful death.
In her recent veto of the Grieving Families Act, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took fire for her choices. The bill represented years of effort by the state legislature to expand the qualifiers for wrongful death lawsuits. Those supporting what ultimately became Senate Bill S74A believed they finally had the law over the finish line. Those opposed breathed a sigh of relief when the bill was vetoed.
Had Gov. Hochul signed Bill 274A, the effect on costs would have been enormous for physicians. New York already has the highest cumulative medical liability payouts in the nation, according to the Medical Society of the State of New York.
The MSSNY was among many parties that fought against the law. The Greater New York Hospital Association, insurance companies, the Defense Association of New York, and the New York Conference of Mayors all joined in lobbying against the bill.
“Gov. Hochul, in her veto message, correctly noted that the proposed New York legislation represented an extraordinary departure from New York’s wrongful death jurisprudence,” says Remi Stone, director of government relations at The Doctors Company, part of the TDC Group. “I would add that while there are some other states that allow grief damages, none are as wide-ranging as the proposed legislation.”
The NYPIRG, the AARP, and the New York Immigration Coalition supported the bill. In a statement following the veto, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association said: “By vetoing the Grieving Families Act, Gov. Hochul has sided with insurance companies, the health care industry, big corporations, and anyone else who doesn’t want to be held accountable for the negligent killing of a person. This bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and would rectify over a century of injustice.”
Following Gov. Hochul’s veto, the bill’s proponents and the state legislature vowed to return to the drawing board and construct a bill that the governor would eventually approve. For now, however, the controversial legislation has been put to rest.
Mr. Haven and the NYPIRG argue that New York lags behind many other states in allowing survivors to claim loss for their emotional distress. “When there is relationship loss, it has a great impact on your life,” Mr. Haven says, “and this goes beyond simply the financial impact.”
“The bill was well intended but completely vague on who could bring lawsuits and would have increased medical malpractice insurance by far too much,” says MSSNY President Parag Mehta, MD. “For safety net hospitals, one lawsuit would halt their ability to provide many programs aimed at underserved populations.”
Peter Kolbert, JD, senior vice president of claim and litigation services at Healthcare Risk Advisors (part of the TDC Group), had this to say: “The current ‘recoverable’ damages in New York in a wrongful death case include loss of guidance and support for minor children of a decedent. Those damages have been sustained at $2 million per child. It is rationally very challenging, if not impossible, to distinguish between those damages and the proposed damages that the very same people would have been entitled to under the proposed statute.”
What will happen in the future?
While the veto has stalled New York’s wrongful death expansion for now, supporters in and out of the legislature remain determined to continue their fight. “Advocates argue that the bill would have brought the state in line with wrongful death law in others,” says Brian Whitelaw, JD, a partner at Michigan’s Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip. “But if the bill had become law as written, the economic impact would have been substantial.”
Mr. Whitelaw says that such wide-ranging lawsuits can have consequences that extend far beyond physicians’ insurance premiums. “This could impact the average person on the street’s ability to obtain the medical care they need, because doctors will go elsewhere to practice,” he says. “Beyond impacting the health care system, it can hurt small businesses as well.”
Mr. Haven says supporters of the expansion are far from finished with their efforts. “New York’s current law dates back to 1847, and it was cutting edge then,” he says. “It was designed for an agrarian society where if the husband died, his widow and children wouldn’t become destitute. Now, 175 years later, we realize that the law has biases, and tort law has evolved. The state needs to evolve as well.”
For his part, Dr. Mehta is open to a dialogue with lawmakers to revise the law in a manner agreeable to all parties. “We want to work together to make the system right,” he says. “The liability system in New York needs an overall holistic change, and we are available at any time to have discussions. The vetoed bill was a Band-Aid and didn’t address the main, underlying issues in the state.”
Mr. Stebbins, too, says he would like to continue the debate over how an expansion should look. “We hope to go through a discussion on caps to these suits,” he explains. “We have already seen the cap of $10 million broken four times in the past few years through nuclear verdicts. That’s something we need to address.”
Given the legislature’s overwhelming support for the bill, some version of it will likely make another appearance in the coming session. Whether or not it can strike the middle ground that will make all parties happy – including the governor – is yet to be seen. “Is it wrong to seek compensation for pain and suffering from a wrongful death?” asks Mr. Whitelaw. “No. But there must be limits to such laws, or where does it end?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In utero exposure to asthma medication not tied to risks of neurodevelopmental disorders
The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.
“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.
However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.
“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.
To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.
The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).
After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).
Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.
The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.
The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.
“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.
“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.
However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.
“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.
To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.
The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).
After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).
Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.
The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.
The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.
“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The drugs included in the study were leukotriene-receptor antagonists (LTRAs), which are often used to treat allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis.
“Over the years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has monitored post-marketing data about the potential harm of neuropsychiatric events (NEs) associated with montelukast, the first type of LTRAs, and issued boxed warnings about serious mental health side effects for montelukast in 2020,” said corresponding author Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, in an interview.
However, evidence of a link between NEs and LTRA use has been inconsistent, according to Dr. Yao and colleagues.
“To date, it remains totally unknown whether the exposure to LTRAs during pregnancy is associated with the risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring,” said Dr. Yao.
To address this question, the researchers used data from National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify pregnant women and their offspring from 2009 to 2019. The initial study population included 576,157 mother-offspring pairs, including 1,995 LTRA-exposed and 574,162 nonexposed children.
The women had a diagnosis of asthma or allergic rhinitis; multiple births and children with congenital malformations were excluded. LTRA exposure was defined as any dispensed prescription for LTRAs during pregnancy. Approximately two-thirds of the mothers were aged 30-40 years at the time of delivery.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
In the study population at large, the incidence of the three neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and Tourette syndrome was not significantly different between those children exposed to LTRAs and those not exposed to LTRAs in utero (1.25% vs. 1.32%; 3.31% vs. 4.36%; and 0.45% vs. 0.83%, respectively).
After propensity score matching, the study population included 1,988 LTRA-exposed children and 19,863 nonexposed children. In this group, no significant associations appeared between prenatal LTRA exposure and the risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03), autism spectrum disorder (AHR, 1.01), and Tourette syndrome (AHR, 0.63).
Neither duration nor cumulative dose of LTRA use during pregnancy showed an association with ADHD, ASD, or Tourette syndrome in offspring. Duration of LTRA use was categorized as shorter or longer periods of 1-4 weeks vs. more than 4 weeks; cumulative dose was categorized as 1-170 mg vs. 170 mg or higher.
The findings were limited by the lack of randomization, inability to detect long-term risk, and potential lack of generalizability to non-Asian populations, and more research is needed to replicate the results, the researchers noted. However, the current findings were strengthened by the large study population, and suggest that LTRA use in pregnancy does not present a significant risk for NEs in children, which should be reassuring to clinicians and patients, they concluded.
The current study is the first to use the whole of Taiwan population data and extends previous studies by examining the association between LTRA use during pregnancy and risk of neuropsychiatric events in offspring, Dr. Yao said in an interview. “The possibly surprising, but reassuring, finding is that prenatal LTRA exposure did not increase risk of ADHD, ASD, and Tourette syndrome in offspring,” he said.
“Clinicians prescribing LTRAs such as montelukast (Singulair and generics) to pregnant women with asthma or allergic rhinitis may be reassured by our findings,” Dr. Yao added. The results offer real-world evidence to help inform decision-making about the use of LTRAs during pregnancy, although additional research is needed to replicate the study findings in other populations, he said.
The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the National Science and Technology Council of Taiwan, and the Chang Gung Medical Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Cognitive remediation training reduces aggression in schizophrenia
Aggressive behavior, including verbal or physical threats or violent acts, is at least four times more likely among individuals with schizophrenia, compared with the general population, wrote Anzalee Khan, PhD, of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, N.Y., and colleagues. Recent studies suggest that psychosocial treatments such as cognitive remediation training (CRT) or social cognition training (SCT) may be helpful, but the potential benefit of combining these strategies has not been explored, they said.
In a study published in Schizophrenia Research , the authors randomized 62 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to 36 sessions of a combination treatment with cognitive remediation and social cognition; 68 were randomized to cognitive remediation and computer-based control treatment. Participants also had at least one confirmed assault in the past year, or scores of 5 or higher on the Life History of Aggression scale. Complete data were analyzed for 45 patients in the CRT/SRT group and 34 in the CRT control group.
The primary outcome was the measure of aggression using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (OAS-M) in which higher scores indicate higher levels of aggression. Incidents of aggression were coded based on hospital staff reports and summarized weekly. The mean age of the participants was 34.9 years (ranging from 18 to 60 years), 85% were male, and the mean years of education was 11.5.
At the study’s end (14 weeks), participants in both groups showed significant reductions in measures of aggression from baseline, with the largest effect size for the total global OAS-M score (effect size 1.11 for CRT plus SCT and 0.73 for the CRT plus control group).
The results failed to confirm the hypothesis that the combination of CRT and SCT would significantly increase improvements in aggression compared with CRT alone, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Potential reasons include underdosed SCT intervention (only 12 sessions) and the nature of the SCT used in the study, which had few aggressive social interaction models and more models related to social engagement.
Although adding SCT did not have a significant impact on aggression, patients in the CRT plus SCT group showed greater improvement in cognitive function, emotion recognition, and mentalizing, compared with the controls without SCT, the researchers noted.
“While these findings are not surprising given that participants in the CRT plus SCT group received active social cognition training, they do support the idea that social cognition training may have contributed to further strengthen our effect on cognition,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of individuals with chronic schizophrenia and low levels of function in long-term tertiary care, which may limit generalizability, and the inability to control for the effects of pharmacotherapy, the researchers said.
However, the results were strengthened by the multidimensional assessments at both time points and the use of two cognitive and social cognition interventions, and suggest that adding social cognitive training enhanced the effect of CRT on cognitive function, emotion regulation, and mentalizing capacity, they said.
“Future studies are needed to examine the antiaggressive effects of a more intensive and more targeted social cognition intervention combined with CRT,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Award Program, National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Aggressive behavior, including verbal or physical threats or violent acts, is at least four times more likely among individuals with schizophrenia, compared with the general population, wrote Anzalee Khan, PhD, of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, N.Y., and colleagues. Recent studies suggest that psychosocial treatments such as cognitive remediation training (CRT) or social cognition training (SCT) may be helpful, but the potential benefit of combining these strategies has not been explored, they said.
In a study published in Schizophrenia Research , the authors randomized 62 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to 36 sessions of a combination treatment with cognitive remediation and social cognition; 68 were randomized to cognitive remediation and computer-based control treatment. Participants also had at least one confirmed assault in the past year, or scores of 5 or higher on the Life History of Aggression scale. Complete data were analyzed for 45 patients in the CRT/SRT group and 34 in the CRT control group.
The primary outcome was the measure of aggression using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (OAS-M) in which higher scores indicate higher levels of aggression. Incidents of aggression were coded based on hospital staff reports and summarized weekly. The mean age of the participants was 34.9 years (ranging from 18 to 60 years), 85% were male, and the mean years of education was 11.5.
At the study’s end (14 weeks), participants in both groups showed significant reductions in measures of aggression from baseline, with the largest effect size for the total global OAS-M score (effect size 1.11 for CRT plus SCT and 0.73 for the CRT plus control group).
The results failed to confirm the hypothesis that the combination of CRT and SCT would significantly increase improvements in aggression compared with CRT alone, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Potential reasons include underdosed SCT intervention (only 12 sessions) and the nature of the SCT used in the study, which had few aggressive social interaction models and more models related to social engagement.
Although adding SCT did not have a significant impact on aggression, patients in the CRT plus SCT group showed greater improvement in cognitive function, emotion recognition, and mentalizing, compared with the controls without SCT, the researchers noted.
“While these findings are not surprising given that participants in the CRT plus SCT group received active social cognition training, they do support the idea that social cognition training may have contributed to further strengthen our effect on cognition,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of individuals with chronic schizophrenia and low levels of function in long-term tertiary care, which may limit generalizability, and the inability to control for the effects of pharmacotherapy, the researchers said.
However, the results were strengthened by the multidimensional assessments at both time points and the use of two cognitive and social cognition interventions, and suggest that adding social cognitive training enhanced the effect of CRT on cognitive function, emotion regulation, and mentalizing capacity, they said.
“Future studies are needed to examine the antiaggressive effects of a more intensive and more targeted social cognition intervention combined with CRT,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Award Program, National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Aggressive behavior, including verbal or physical threats or violent acts, is at least four times more likely among individuals with schizophrenia, compared with the general population, wrote Anzalee Khan, PhD, of the Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, N.Y., and colleagues. Recent studies suggest that psychosocial treatments such as cognitive remediation training (CRT) or social cognition training (SCT) may be helpful, but the potential benefit of combining these strategies has not been explored, they said.
In a study published in Schizophrenia Research , the authors randomized 62 adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to 36 sessions of a combination treatment with cognitive remediation and social cognition; 68 were randomized to cognitive remediation and computer-based control treatment. Participants also had at least one confirmed assault in the past year, or scores of 5 or higher on the Life History of Aggression scale. Complete data were analyzed for 45 patients in the CRT/SRT group and 34 in the CRT control group.
The primary outcome was the measure of aggression using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (OAS-M) in which higher scores indicate higher levels of aggression. Incidents of aggression were coded based on hospital staff reports and summarized weekly. The mean age of the participants was 34.9 years (ranging from 18 to 60 years), 85% were male, and the mean years of education was 11.5.
At the study’s end (14 weeks), participants in both groups showed significant reductions in measures of aggression from baseline, with the largest effect size for the total global OAS-M score (effect size 1.11 for CRT plus SCT and 0.73 for the CRT plus control group).
The results failed to confirm the hypothesis that the combination of CRT and SCT would significantly increase improvements in aggression compared with CRT alone, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Potential reasons include underdosed SCT intervention (only 12 sessions) and the nature of the SCT used in the study, which had few aggressive social interaction models and more models related to social engagement.
Although adding SCT did not have a significant impact on aggression, patients in the CRT plus SCT group showed greater improvement in cognitive function, emotion recognition, and mentalizing, compared with the controls without SCT, the researchers noted.
“While these findings are not surprising given that participants in the CRT plus SCT group received active social cognition training, they do support the idea that social cognition training may have contributed to further strengthen our effect on cognition,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study population of individuals with chronic schizophrenia and low levels of function in long-term tertiary care, which may limit generalizability, and the inability to control for the effects of pharmacotherapy, the researchers said.
However, the results were strengthened by the multidimensional assessments at both time points and the use of two cognitive and social cognition interventions, and suggest that adding social cognitive training enhanced the effect of CRT on cognitive function, emotion regulation, and mentalizing capacity, they said.
“Future studies are needed to examine the antiaggressive effects of a more intensive and more targeted social cognition intervention combined with CRT,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Weill Cornell Clinical and Translational Science Award Program, National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH